Your enlightenment in this life is assured!

[Vajrahridaya]

VJ that sounds like a major and misleading generalization concerning the upanishads which you seem compelled to do:

 

Nope, I understand the Upanishads and where they lead, higher rebirth! They are good... but they are not going to lead to Buddhahood.

 

"...The first point to be noted is that the word Samadhi does not occur in the ten major Upanishads upon which Sankara has commented. This is not a matter to be lightly passed over, for if the attainment of Samadhi is central to the experiential verification of the Vedanta, as we can gather it is, judging by the statements of some modern Vedantins such as those cited above, then one would legitimately expect the term to appear in the major Upanishads which are the very source of the Vedanta. Yet the word does not occur. The closest approximation to the word Samadhi in the early Upanisads is the past passive participle samahita in the Chandogya and Brhadaranyaka Upanishads. In both texts the word samahita is not used in the technical meaning of Samadhi ,that is, in the sense of a meditative absorption or enstasis ,although the closest approximation to this sense occurs in the Brhadaranyaka. In the first reference (BU 4.2.1) , Yajnavalkya tells Janaka: "You have fully equipped your mind (samahitatma) with so many secret names [of Brahman, that is, Upanishads]." Here the word samahita should be translated as "concentrated, collected, brought together, or composed."

 

It doesn't matter, the Upanishads still uphold independent origination/consciousness. There is no insight into dependent origination/emptiness elaborated upon in any Upanishad. There is the, "beyond being and non-being" level of comprehension though. That is the highest jhana as exposed by the Buddha, the state beyond perception and non-perception, so one can ascertain from this fact that the Upanishads are still revolving around absorption states and merging with the formless levels of being.

 

In the second occurrence (BU 4.4.23), Yajnavalkya tells Janaka that a knower of Brahman becomes "calm (santa), controlled (danta), withdrawn from sense pleasures (uparati), forbearing (titiksu), and collected in mind (samahita). This reference to samahita is the closest approximation in the Upanishads to the term Samadhi, which is well known in the later yoga literature. However, the two terms are not synonyms, for in the Upanishad the word samahita means "collectedness of mind," and there is no reference to a meditation practice leading to the suspension of the faculties such as we find in the literature dealing with yoga..."

 

This all still references absorption.

 

All of this stuff at best is vehicles, including Buddhism.

 

Om

 

No, it does not include Buddhism. As Buddhism teaches non-absorption and insight, or rather, cutting through. Absorption is used as a tool to clear the mind and to experience all the levels of Samsara, but not as a basis to meld the mind with, but rather as merely a way to see all the side effects of having a mind, or to see all the levels of mind and inter-mind-manifestation, i.e. different realms, past lives, gaining super natural power over ones body and elements, etc.

 

The aim of the Upanishads and the Buddhas teachings are very different, as elaborated upon by many Buddhist Masters, including the Dalai Lama. The Upanishads lead to mastery over the 4 immeasurables or Brahmaviharas. It's very clear that they do not teach the Buddhadharma, but rather the path to higher rebirth.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[3bob]

Nope, I understand the Upanishads and where they lead, higher rebirth! They are good... but they are not going to lead to Buddhahood.

 

It doesn't matter, the Upanishads still uphold independent origination/consciousness. There is no insight into dependent origination/emptiness elaborated upon in any Upanishad. There is the, "beyond being and non-being" level of comprehension though. That is the highest jhana as exposed by the Buddha, the state beyond perception and non-perception, so one can ascertain from this fact that the Upanishads are still revolving around absorption states and merging with the formless levels of being.

 

This all still references absorption.

 

No, it does not include Buddhism. As Buddhism teaches non-absorption and insight, or rather, cutting through. Absorption is used as a tool to clear the mind and to experience all the levels of Samsara, but not as a basis to meld the mind with, but rather as merely a way to see all the side effects of having a mind, or to see all the levels of mind and inter-mind-manifestation, i.e. different realms, past lives, gaining super natural power over ones body and elements, etc.

 

The aim of the Upanishads and the Buddhas teachings are very different, as elaborated upon by many Buddhist Masters, including the Dalai Lama. The Upanishads lead to mastery over the 4 immeasurables or Brahmaviharas. It's very clear that they do not teach the Buddhadharma, but rather the path to higher rebirth.

 

"Buddhism" by what is recognized as the Buddha's own recorded words is likened to as a raft or vehicle. (and must be put down at some point instead hauled about when it is no longer needed)

 

"I'm not enlighened" is your own admission VJ. yet you presume to talk, explain and make assumptions about that which you are not qualified to do. (Such as the upanishads pointing to, intending or resulting in higher re-births! It does not make a difference how much one reads if one then makes dogmatic statements about same.

 

Om

[dwai]

I used to think that too. But, Vajrayana just doesn't teach that, neither does Mahayana and neither does Theravada. So, you are going to have to open up to a new way of viewing in order to understand what non-dual means in Buddhism. You are having a hard time doing this. I know, it's not easy to do this.

 

The fact remains. In Hinduism, advaita means not two, but one.

 

In Buddhism, Anatman or Anatta means no self, neither one, nor many. This is what non-dual means in translations of Buddhist teachings. Non-dual literally means, not-two in English, and that doesn't mean that there is a definite one though, not for Buddhists.

 

You can think that Buddhism is wrong to you, but this is what Buddhism teaches. The Buddha did not teach the same definition of Nirvana and Samsara as the Upanishads nor Adi Shankaracharya. Non-dual means not one and not many, because we revolve our understanding around dependent origination and emptiness while you resolve everything into a single consciousness and utilize the top down theory of independent origination.

 

 

ACtually there IS No origination in Advaita Vedanta view. Because there is only That One, there is none other than that. And since That One is eternal, there is no origination. What we consider origination in the relative realm (samvritti or vyavaharika) is a result of superimposition of catergorical frameworks on That One (Consciousness). Hmm...seems a lot like dependent origination to me (object and subject dependently co-arise)...

 

So, in Advaita Vedantic view, DO is a lower-level process, one that gives rise to phenomena. Understanding of DO leads one to that which doesn't change, doesn't arise.

 

 

Actually, Buddhist dialectic is much subtler than resolving everything into a one. In the Prajnaparamita Sutra you can read about how we are trained to understand that neither I nor other beings inherently exist. We are not taught to resolve everything into a one either, but to realize inter-connectivity and emptiness. Emptiness is not at all equal with the concept of Brahman, a self shining reality.

 

In Buddhism, we don't feel that resolving into a singularity will in fact break you from the bondage of unconscious rebirth, because at the end of a cosmic eon, you are swallowed up by this attachment to a singularity. So beings are literally swallowed up by their belief in an ultimate Self during pralaya. The vast majority of beings, or those that do not attain Buddhahood are absorbed by the singularity at the end of a cosmic eon to be recycled and re-expressed in the next without memory of the prier.

 

Our cosmologies are different.

 

So we don't feel that you do break the bonds of karma because you don't see how deeply karmas' vines hold you as a follower of the Brahma vehicle, and you can call it whatever you want, but to Buddhas it's all considered the Brahma vehicle, advaita, vedanta, etc. Any belief system, or interpretation of experience that resolves into independent origination is considered a Brahma vehicle. You can say that it doesn't, but I've studied Advaita and Vedanta of many sorts for many years and they all resolve into a primal ground or single cause for all things, i.e. the cosmic consciousness beyond name and form.

 

We as Buddhists don't see this system of method and focus as ending the bondage of karma but merely leading to higher rebirth either in a long lived deva realm or in a formless deva realm.

 

It's all there in the suttas. There is more detail in the Abhidhamma and even more in the Abhidharma and Abhidharma Kosha.

 

Buddhism just doesn't teach that all things resolve into a singularity. Our non-dual is not the same as your non-dual. This is not hiding behind words, it's just what Buddhism teaches and the experience is different. Your non-duality is substantiated by Brahman the independent, while our non-duality is non-substantiated by emptiness and dependent origination.

 

 

You just don't get it!

 

[Vajrahridaya]

"Buddhism" by what is recognized as the Buddha's own recorded words is likened to as a raft or vehicle. (and must be put down at some point instead hauled about when it is no longer needed)

 

 

Yes, who here doesn't need it?

Also, this is an internal stance, even after attaining realization, what did the Buddha do... go around and talk about the raft for 40 years, it's structure, it's oars, the ocean it must traverse. Just because a person is enlightened doesn't mean they don't talk about how to get out of darkness.

 

"I'm not enlighened" is your own admission VJ. yet you presume to talk, explain and make assumptions about that which you are not qualified to do. (Such as the upanishads pointing to, intending or resulting in higher re-births! It does not make a difference how much one reads if one then makes dogmatic statements about same.

 

Om

 

Because I'm not a Buddha, doesn't mean I don't have my qualifying experiences, and clear understandings derived from the Buddhas words and meditative experiences. Also, the Buddha makes it quite clear where the Upanishads lead to. It's all right there in black and white, in the Pali Suttas. Not to mention all the commentaries by Masters concerning the same all the way from Hinayana to Dzogchen.

 

It's fine if you don't agree, that doesn't mean I should shut up though, why should people follow erroneous paths? Of course everyone has their process and cultivating through the Upanishads does lead to mastering the 4 brahmaviharas which leads to higher rebirth, and higher capacity to one day understand the dharma.

[Vajrahridaya]

ACtually there IS No origination in Advaita Vedanta view.

 

Both you and I know that cosmic consciousness, shiva, brahman, the infinite consciousness is considered the origin of the cosmos in Vedanta. From the Vedas, to the Upanishads, to Shankaracharyas commentaries, to Trika Shaivism. Maya arises out of Prakriti and Purusha is the Atman, and all of it is Brahman. Vedantins consider the Turiya state the recognition of an ultimate, self shining reality. You're whole paradigm is a top down revelation of independent origination. The realization is just not the same as the Buddhas.

 

All the traditions based upon the Vedas have a cyclical understanding of Eternity that bases the creation, sustenance and destruction of the universe on a divine element, a formless basis that is self shining and originates the universe independently. It is also one with it. Samkhya reveals 24 tattvas, Vedanta reveals 25, and Trika reveals 36 tattvas, all in a top down fashion, which works dimensionally on the mind in contemplation as intermingling layers from Maya to pure infinite consciousness as the independent originator and as one with it all.

 

Because there is only That One, there is none other than that. And since That One is eternal, there is no origination. What we consider origination in the relative realm (samvritti or vyavaharika) is a result of superimposition of catergorical frameworks on That One (Consciousness). Hmm...seems a lot like dependent origination to me (object and subject dependently co-arise)...

 

Yes, but dependent origination according to the Buddha is the all, there is no need for a divine and eternal element which starts and stops the process. According to the Buddha, your turiya state is merely one or other of the formless jhanas clung to as an ultimate identity out of the natural mistake of the jiva to try to cling to a self as ultimate.

 

So, in Advaita Vedantic view, DO is a lower-level process, one that gives rise to phenomena. Understanding of DO leads one to that which doesn't change, doesn't arise.

 

The profound experience and view of D.O. has to be related to how the Buddha taught it, not how you wish to see it according to Vedanta. The Buddha would not have criticized the Vedas and would have taught Vedanta if they were the very same. But he didn't, and he in fact debated with those that believe in an Eternalistic element, saying that is the wrong view if you truly want Moksha.

 

Again, your non-dual is substantiated, by a truly existent one of all, an ultimate Self of all that subsumes all differences.

 

Buddha just didn't teach this. His cosmology is different from Vedantins.

 

You just don't get it!

 

Is that so?

Edited November 24, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

If you want to know how Buddhism teaches, read Abhidhamma, Abhidharma and Abhidharma kosha. This will take a while. Then maybe you will realize that the teaching and experience of how the universe does it's universing is different according to Buddhas than it is according to the Devas.

[3bob]

Yes, who here doesn't need it?

Also, this is an internal stance, even after attaining realization, what did the Buddha do... go around and talk about the raft for 40 years, it's structure, it's oars, the ocean it must traverse. Just because a person is enlightened doesn't mean they don't talk about how to get out of darkness.

 

Because I'm not a Buddha, doesn't mean I don't have my qualifying experiences, and clear understandings derived from the Buddhas words and meditative experiences. Also, the Buddha makes it quite clear where the Upanishads lead to. It's all right there in black and white, in the Pali Suttas. Not to mention all the commentaries by Masters concerning the same all the way from Hinayana to Dzogchen.

 

It's fine if you don't agree, that doesn't mean I should shut up though, why should people follow erroneous paths? Of course everyone has their process and cultivating through the Upanishads does lead to mastering the 4 brahmaviharas which leads to higher rebirth, and higher capacity to one day understand the dharma.

 

Making presumptions about Vedic related pointers or Buddhist related pointers result in pretty much the same error. Btw, Vedic related teachings include a vast amounts of more teachings than your narrow and limited stereo-types VJ, thus imo such partially-baked misrepresentations about same would be a reasonable thing for you to consider holding back on your judgemental, know-it-all type forays...

 

Om

Edited November 25, 2010 by 3bob

[Vajrahridaya]

Making presumptions about Vedic related pointers or Buddhist related pointers result in pretty much the same error.

 

Actually, I'm not making any assumptions. I grew up with Vedic Brahmin's who could repeat the Shree Rudram in 7 minutes from memory. I mean real Vedic Brahmins who knew all the vedas, upanishads, Sruti and Smrti texts. I've been witness to many traditional Vedic ceremonies involving fire, installation of Murti ceremonies... etc. With follow along texts. I used to read from the various Gitas, Chalisas daily and I've read many of the Puranas. I've read from so, so many Hindu saints, Tukaram, Jnaneshwar, Mirabai, the list goes on for a very long time, both well known and lesser known. I've read from the South Indian Siddhars. Blah, blah, blah. I know more about the Vedas and it's history, culture, spirituality than you know Bob. So did the Buddha and he still criticized it as not being the path to Moksha.

Btw, Vedic related teachings include a vast amounts of more teachings than your narrow and limited stereo-types VJ

 

Bob, I think the fact of how personal you take this is a deeper revelation. Also the fact that you always fall back on adhom attacks is another revelation. It was hard to break free from my Vedic, all comes from one god, conditioning. Much harder than you know.

 

, thus imo such partially-baked misrepresentations about same would be a reasonable thing for you to consider holding back on your judgemental, know-it-all type forays...

 

Om

 

I don't know it all, but I know plenty enough, both through knowledge and direct cognitive inference in meditative states and transmissions from living and beyond the body Buddhas.

 

But, you are welcome to your perspective. I'm still going to share what I know.

Edited November 25, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[3bob]

When it comes to being shrinks I don't think either one of us are good at it... which may be something we can agree upon?

 

"Brahmins" (and all the rest) does not equate to Sat Guru. Buddhist monks (and all the rest) does not equate to "enlighened one". What seems or we make complicated is ultimately reduced to astoundingly simple Purity; (and its sisters so to speak) for Love is not complicated.

 

Later,

Om

Edited November 25, 2010 by 3bob

[Vajrahridaya]

[dwai]

[ralis]

Hello Vaj,

 

You've obviously ignored my previous comment and that's fine, but what I would ask is "how does this actually relate to Taoism?" It seems to me that you're doing exactly what you claim not to be doing, attempting to convert people to Buddhism. Everything being discussed here is Buddhist in nature and has nothing to do with Taoism. I would love to hear some passages from the Tao Teh Ching or even the Chuang Zhi that might support some of your arguments, because for the life of me I can't think of any.

 

Enlightenment is not Taoist in concept. In fact there is no need to become enlightened according to the Tao Teh Ching, rather there is need to become aware of ones place in the universe and the Tao. Awareness is not the same as the Buddhist idea of enlightenment because it doesn't require you to break any cycle, but rather become aware of the cycle that exists everywhere.

 

Aaron

 

Vajraji is our resident fanatic and has admitted so on numerous occasions. His agenda is to put down other religions and belief systems in the hope that he will have Buddhist converts. He has on numerous occasions attempted to convince me that the Buddha understood Einstein's work on Special and General Relativity. LOL!! He is absolutely convinced that Buddhism is the one true path.

 

His writings are chaotic and fractured which gives him plenty of wiggle room thus making it very difficult and even impossible to have a rational debate.

[ralis]

Even if one is not a disciple, one will still attain the heavenly life, after which, however, one may again be reborn in a hell realm, or as an animal or hungry ghost.[13]"

 

 

Hell Realms? Give me a break! This kind of propaganda is used to evoke people's fear and is akin to the dark ages of Catholicism. Further, this fear mongering keeps the masses controlled and are easy to fleece! These concepts are infantile and are indicative of superstition and narrow mindedness.

 

Don't you Buddhists ever question this?

Edited November 25, 2010 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Hell Realms? Give me a break! This kind of propaganda is used to evoke people's fear and is akin to the dark ages of Catholicism. Further, this fear mongering keeps the masses controlled and are easy to fleece! These concepts are infantile and are indicative of superstition and narrow mindedness.

 

Don't you Buddhists ever question this?

 

Hell realms exist, and you can experience them directly. Do you have a fear of going beyond the known, and do you lack meditative experience? You should ask yourself these questions instead of staying trapped in 5 sense perception. I know they exist as there are dimensions that are self illumined and have no need for a sun, illumined by love, joy, and pure awareness. Then there are realms that are dark and are illumined by anger and violence. There is more to the cosmos than meets your 5 senses Ralis. We live in a lower middle realm with night and day, with lots of dense friction. There are realms that are even more dense than this though. Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche also teaches that these realms exist and he has also experienced them directly, just as I have. So, yes, I used to question their validity and I don't believe anything until I experience it first hand. These realms are experienced as clearly as this one is, and are not merely dreams, or fanciful projections. You have to raise your energy to a certain degree and open up your chakras in order to experience what the great Masters did and do. It would be a quantum leap for you and your mind would never be the same.

 

 

Good day.

Edited November 25, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

He has on numerous occasions attempted to convince me that the Buddha understood Einstein's work on Special and General Relativity.

 

 

 

I said he taught relativity. I then said that Einstein thought that Buddhism was the best religion on the planet and quoted him in saying basically this.

 

Then I wrote a commentary on Einsteins theories and compared them with Buddhist teachings, a long page actually... what is it now, about a year ago? You never commented on that page, instead you followed me around for a very long time in the same fashion that you are now, with very little to say, except hateful remarks. Most everything you say is based on assumption and misappropriation of information.

Edited November 25, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

That dude Hari...he just likes to have the last word...

 

Yeah, it's the Aries in me.

[Vajrahridaya]

He is absolutely convinced that Buddhism is the one true path.

 

 

 

It is possible that an individual may come to the same conclusions on their own, or through exhausting all possibilities of another path. Also, everyone has their process and not everyone is ready to let go of their experience of an "ultimate truth" or "ultimate identity" of everything. When a person is ready for the insight of dependent origination/emptiness, they invariably make it to the Buddhadharma, even if it's in another star system, by another name.

[Birch]

"even if it's in another star system, by another name."

 

Well then it's not

 

I've gotten used to you with this stuff and I understand roughly half of what you're saying at any given time.

 

But if I've "gotten" anything from all you've said. Why bother continuing to wish people to be buddhists? If they're buddha already, surely they can decide for themselves whether they'd like to wake up now or not? And if they decide not to - or even to do it a different way, does it matter? It doesn't automatically make it a buddhist event. Does it???

[Vajrahridaya]

"even if it's in another star system, by another name."

 

Well then it's not

 

I've gotten used to you with this stuff and I understand roughly half of what you're saying at any given time.

 

But if I've "gotten" anything from all you've said. Why bother continuing to wish people to be buddhists? If they're buddha already, surely they can decide for themselves whether they'd like to wake up now or not? And if they decide not to - or even to do it a different way, does it matter? It doesn't automatically make it a buddhist event. Does it???

To continue to wish everyone to come to Buddhism or to attain Buddhahood is part of the path of a Bodhisattva.

 

If someone became a Buddha, which just means "awake" in any way that it may happen, it would be a Buddhist event, as in an "awake-ist" event and other "awake" beings would recognize that "awake" person as being "awake." No matter the star system, or whatever dimension the person happened to be occupying at the time.

[ralis]

Hell realms exist, and you can experience them directly. Do you have a fear of going beyond the known, and do you lack meditative experience? You should ask yourself these questions instead of staying trapped in 5 sense perception. I know they exist as there are dimensions that are self illumined and have no need for a sun, illumined by love, joy, and pure awareness. Then there are realms that are dark and are illumined by anger and violence. There is more to the cosmos than meets your 5 senses Ralis. We live in a lower middle realm with night and day, with lots of dense friction. There are realms that are even more dense than this though. Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche also teaches that these realms exist and he has also experienced them directly, just as I have. So, yes, I used to question their validity and I don't believe anything until I experience it first hand. These realms are experienced as clearly as this one is, and are not merely dreams, or fanciful projections. You have to raise your energy to a certain degree and open up your chakras in order to experience what the great Masters did and do. It would be a quantum leap for you and your mind would never be the same.

 

 

Good day.

 

 

I have gone beyond the five senses more than you could possibly imagine!

[Vajrahridaya]

I have gone beyond the five senses more than you could possibly imagine!

 

Yeh right... that's why your mind is so open, right?

 

Go find a humble bone... somewhere in that spine of yours.

[Birch]

To continue to wish everyone to come to Buddhism or to attain Buddhahood is part of the path of a Bodhisattva.

 

If someone became a Buddha, which just means "awake" in any way that it may happen, it would be a Buddhist event, as in an "awake-ist" event and other "awake" beings would recognize that "awake" person as being "awake." No matter the star system, or whatever dimension the person happened to be occupying at the time.

 

Okaaaay. So what are some plain English words for the other stuff you talk about? Just for us half-awake people Or, just for me

 

I think my main issue is that Buddhism is a religion and IMO/IME those are meant to STOP people realising anything at all. The confounding jargon seems to help, as does the posing of a figure who can "talk it up" (I'm not saying this is you BTW, but you remind me sometimes of a priest )

 

Where's that post on the use of spiritual tools to hook people into religions?

 

Use a few well-tuned spiritual tools and midway through the development, when a person is having trouble (which I suspect they often might) offer up your dogma as a placeholder? In practice I've found buddhist practices to be helpful but it's not making me a buddhist because I've done them.

[Vajrahridaya]

Okaaaay. So what are some plain English words for the other stuff you talk about? Just for us half-awake people Or, just for me

 

I think my main issue is that Buddhism is a religion and IMO/IME those are meant to STOP people realising anything at all. The confounding jargon seems to help, as does the posing of a figure who can "talk it up" (I'm not saying this is you BTW, but you remind me sometimes of a priest )

 

I don't talk for you my dear. I talk for those that can hear. I express what I know, how I know, for those that are ready to know in a way that merges, that's it. The Buddha was the only one that "preached" yes, "preached" for 40 years the methods to become like him, exactly in mind and intention. No one else did what he did at the time, to the degree of clarity. He was the only one that started a religion that was based entirely on his words. Jesus didn't start Christianity, that was the Romans, Muhammad didn't start Islam, that was the war lords after him.. well he was kind of a warlord himself. Lao Tzu didn't start Taoism... he hardly spoke at all! Anyway...

 

Where's that post on the use of spiritual tools to hook people into religions?

 

You have your pre-conceptual ideas about religions, based upon Christian bypass. You hate the way they preached, so you think any other religion is the same myopic thinking, when it's not. You like Taoism because it's pretty undefined. Well, the Buddha was pretty defining. You'll have your process. I'm not here to determine what that is for you. Do you, not for anyone but you.

Use a few well-tuned spiritual tools and midway through the development, when a person is having trouble (which I suspect they often might) offer up your dogma as a placeholder? In practice I've found buddhist practices to be helpful but it's not making me a buddhist because I've done them.

 

Yes, but have you actually understood them from the point of view of the Buddha who gave them? Or are you conditioned by 2,500 years of mix and match, blend and then new age all paths lead to Rome dogmatism? Most people are too distracted by modern culture to actually delve into what the Buddha actually taught. Sound bite here, phrase there, oh it sounds the same!!?? Kali Yuga.. the age of darkness.. the age of information!! Mostly just distraction. But at the same time, the opportunity is there to transcend what you know and venture into the unknown!! Only of course... to know!! If you so choose to... It will take some sacrifice though. Yes, it will! To let go of your chaotic habits and actually strike up a conversation with what the Buddha was actually on about? Yup... sacrifice. If your not ready... then let it be. Forget me. Do your own thing.

[Jetsun]

The problem I have is maintaining right view in a moment to moment basis throughout my life, I have been looking at the teachings analytically and testing their truth in some basic practice but it doesn't stop me being hypnotised by life 99% of the day and loosing right view the majority of the time, unfortunately.

[Vajrahridaya]

The problem I have is maintaining right view in a moment to moment basis throughout my life, I have been looking at the teachings analytically and testing their truth in some basic practice but it doesn't stop me being hypnotised by life 99% of the day and loosing right view the majority of the time, unfortunately.

 

Yes, I know... It's very hard to be a Buddha, even though it's easy in a sense, depending. Eh, I've been to heaven realms, I've seen Buddha beings who've attained Jalus... I've still got lots of issues and hypocrisies when it comes to the intensity of this day and age of material distraction-ism. I feel you... just keep the view no matter if you fall or rise... it's all empty, equally!! I wish you well... every day practice is key. Especially that practice initiated by a Master you have one of those incredible connections to! Like... mind blowing connection to. Where you feel your every thought tracked by that lineage.